Heartfelt Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People told us they felt safe using the service. Staff understood their duty and responsibility to safeguard people from abuse and the management team supported staff to take appropriate action to safeguard people from abuse. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and there had not been any missed calls. The registered manager told us they did not take on any new packages of care unless they had the staff in place to support them. Staff had been recruited safely. They had received an induction and their competency had been checked to make sure they had the skills to support people safely. Risks to people’s health and welfare had been assessed and there was guidance in place to mitigate the risks. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us that when they contacted the service they were listened to, and the management team were responsive and addressed any issues.

The registered manager was aware of their role and legal responsibility to be honest with people when things go wrong and to report and learn from any incidents.

There were systems in place for staff to report concerns or accidents. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and actions were identified to help minimise the risk of further accidents for people. There was evidence to show that the registered manager understood reflective practice to learn from events and put in place actions that were then embedded. For example, following our last inspection changes have been made and sustained. They had been transparent with the people using the service and staff about the necessary improvements made. There was a culture within the management team of learning, evaluating and improvement.

Where appropriate people’s families were involved and informed of developments and changes. Comments included, “Oh yes, absolutely they tell me what’s going on back at base, whose doing what and when” and “Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t which is understandable as mum fills me in or (staff member) texts me a few different things.”

Staff worked well with external professionals, sharing information to ensure people’s care needs were met. For example, community nurses and GPs. For example, in a staff meeting in January 2024, it was discussed about an occupational therapist’s involvement in a home visit.

Feedback received during the assessment was positive. An external partner was very complimentary about the improvements made within the service, in particular about putting in place processes which resolve issues and concerns.

People’s needs, and care requirements were detailed within their care plans and risk assessments. The service had an electronic care planning system which meant records and information were up to date and could be immediately reviewed and adapted.

People told us they felt safe with the care they received from Heartfelt care. Comments included, “Yes I feel safe” and “Yep all safe.”

Staff knew how to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. They were confident the management team would follow up any concerns and make the necessary referrals. The management team were aware of their reporting responsibilities to partner organisations.

Safeguarding procedures were robust. The provider had a safeguarding policy accessible by staff and staff knew the correct reporting procedures. Staff had received safeguarding training and in addition to this there were frequent reminders on the electronic systems and meetings. Records showed safeguarding concerns were logged, correctly followed up and outcome sought where possible.

People were positive about the support their received from the service. One person’s relative told us; “I’m very happy with them.”

Staff were knowledgeable on how to keep people safe and that they encouraged people to take positive risks. Comments included, “The care plans and risk assessments give plenty of information about the clients. But talking to the clients also give you information about them as well” and “I am able to voice if I have any concerns or changes that may need to be made.”

At the last inspection, we found the provider in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because, the provider had not ensured risks were fully assessed and mitigated. At this assessment we found that considerable improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 12. The provider had a new electronic care system. This meant updates could be made promptly and staff were referring to the most up to date information about people. People's support with their individual risks had been identified, assessed, and mitigated, providing staff with information on how to support people safely. Where people were at risk of harm assessments were carried out. Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed every 6 months or when people’s needs changed. Staff involved people and their relatives. People were positive about the support their received from the service. One person’s relative told us; “I’m very happy with them.” Staff and the management team were aware of people's risks and the support they needed to remain safe and where to find the information required.

The management team undertook environmental risk assessments as part of their assessment process for new packages of care.

People and their relatives told us there were enough staff working at the service. They confirmed they had not had any missed visits and the majority told us staff were usually on time. Staff confirmed that call times allowed them sufficient time to support people with their needs and that travel time factored in between calls was sufficient. People and relatives were complimentary of the support they received from staff and said they had the skills needed to support them safely. Comments included, “The girls we have certainly do…we’re very pleased with the girls who comes here…she’s super” and “Yes…they do everything…Very friendly- very bubbly, they love it when they come here…it’s a friendly house and environment- when they’re off sick she gets odd one or two different people…other than that’s she sees the same old faces.”

People were supported by a small regular team of staff who knew them well and understood their needs. The registered manager told us keeping the same staff with people where possible was always their goal and they supported staff to ensure they were happy and stayed with the service. They told us that staff had guaranteed hours and gave an example of where they had made changes to a staff members' rota to enable them to continue in their role. Staff told us they had received a wide variety of training to be able to carry out their roles. Several staff told us about the higher levels of social care training they had and were undertaking. A member of staff told us, “I have received all appropriate training at Heartfelt which has really helped me with my role.” Another told us, “Training at Heartfelt Care, whether it's done online or in person, is excellent. If you feel you might need more in-depth training, you can speak to (one of the management team).” The service values were threaded through the training and support staff received. All staff had completed the Oliver McGowan training (training on Learning Disability and Autism for health and social care staff).

Staff received the training and supervision to ensure they worked within the values of Heartfelt Care. One staff member told us, “(Two of the management team) especially are always so supporting with my role whenever I need that extra bit of support.” The provider had a robust and safe recruitment process in place to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. This was overseen by one of the management team who had a clear system to ensure all checks were carried out. For example, they had a ‘new starters risk assessment’ and a starters checklist, which they ensured were completed before they agreed the new staff member was able to start shadowing another staff member. All of the management team were involved in the recruitment process. Candidates usually visited the office 3 times so the team could meet them and support them and embed the culture of the service from the start.

People and their relatives did not have concerns about staffing in terms of infection control. People confirmed staff wore their personal protective equipment (PPE) when needed.

Staff had access to plentiful supplies of PPE. One staff member said, “PPE is fully worn and is also fully accessible.” One of the management team carried additional PPE with them should any staff member have a shortage and not be able to get to the office.” Another said, “PPE is vital to our industry and is needed to protect ourselves as well as others.”

Monitoring spot checks were completed which included ensuring staff used PPE appropriately in line with the providers infection control policy. Staff were observed to ensure they followed the providers policy and worked in a safe and clean way in people’s homes. Staff had received infection prevention and control training with regular updates.

People were confident they received their medicines on time and records reflected this.

Staff received medicines training and had their competency assessed. They had ongoing checks to ensure safe practices. Records confirmed this had taken place. Safe procedures were in place for the administration of medicines. This included medicines taken occasionally. There were detailed policies and procedures in place and the service was complying with them.

At the last inspection, we found the provider in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because, the provider had not ensured medicines were always managed safely. At this assessment we found that considerable improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 12. The provider had a new electronic system to record medicines management. There were designated management staff to oversee this process who monitored it daily to ensure medicines were safely managed. Any discrepancies were identified quickly and acted upon. One of the management team spoke about how they felt “more in control” of the medicines. They had implemented a guide for staff in people’s care records, detailing how people take their medicines, the support they needed to do so, together with where medicines were being stored.